Women are lazy because they’re “designed to be a food source” for babies, MGTOW creeper declares

In another world, the internet might have functioned as a sort of enlightenment machine, allowing billions of people instant access to vast repositories of insight and knowledge.

Instead, it’s turned into possibly the greatest amplifier of crackpot notions in human history, bringing about, among other things, the revival of flat-earthism and assorted baroque conspiracy theories like Pizzagate and QAnon. There are countless people who willingly, and happily, get much of their understanding of the world, such as it is, from fake news sites and conspiracy forums.

The manosphere is, of course, one of the most pernicious disseminators of toxic nonsense on the internet today.

Indeed, I can’t help but fear a little for the future of humankind every time I poke my nose into, say, the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, filled to the brim with extravagantly wrong “insights” into the alleged true nature of women.

The MGTOW subreddit has more than 100,000 subscribers. Boy, I sure do love it that there really are dudes out there getting their, er, “knowledge” of women from anonymous douchebag Redditors who don’t understand what sentences are.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

I’m pretty sure that miggies don’t realize that once babies are born, lots of resources go onto raising them. As if once the nursing stage is over, they’re adults and can care for themselves.

That’s why they’re so in love with the artificial womb idea. They think as long as they can bypass the whole persuading a woman to carry their child thing, having kids is a breeze. A fully formed misogyclone will just pop out of the artificial womb ready to carry on the patriarchy.

A fully formed misogyclone will just pop out of the artificial womb ready to carry on the patriarchy.

Mini-MGTOWs probably don’t need the full 18-25 years of maturity that offspring usually require. In terms of emotional development, it’s not a terribly long journey from womb to ranting about the evils of women on YouTube with swords on the wall.

One of my great-grandmothers was a farmer. She gave birth to 12 children for the sake of getting a son to take over the farm.

10 and 11 were twins, boy and girl. Which my great-grandfather railed about. ‘Even with the heir there has to be a girl accompanying!’

And since twins had pretty low survival rates back then they tried again for a spare. The spare was my grandfather.

And amazingly ALL twelve children made it to adulthood, even though there were little things like two world wars and the great depression to fend with.

You sure as hell can believe that at the time all pregnant women (farmer, farmhands, etc.) would do back breaking labour until active labour started. And once the kid was popped out they’d be back working.

Woman are designed to be a food source for a growing person in their body, that’s why day are prone to being lazy, the baby doesn’t need activity or stress it needs mom to stand still and be calm and feed.

What strikes me about GoatKnow’s comment is the relative mildness of it. He’s not calling us whores or even femoids. He’s not saying we’re evil or that we should be slaves.

No, he’s pointing out that, at least according to him, we are lazy — but with a biological reason.

Also, he understands that a woman actually can be raped.

Compared with other MGTOW comments, GoatKnows’ comment is almost reasonable. Yeah, that’s a very, very low bar.

The whole ‘women didn’t work’ annoys me to no end. It was only ever true in the highest levels of the upper class (but there the men didn’t have to work either) and for the middle class for a few decades. Women have always worked.

They’ve often done a lot of their work in the house, but until washing machines and so on were a thing, just caring for a house was more than a full time job. On a farm everyone works. If the man in the family had a trade, everyone in the family who physically could worked in that trade.

My great grandparents had a grocery store. According to the simplistic history descriptions that erase women, my great grandfather ran a grocery store. In reality, the whole family did. They were well off enough to hire someone to clean and do laundry, so my great grandmother could keep the books and the register. My great grandfather was in charge of managing the stock. And my grandmother and her siblings worked in the store as soon as they were old enough to do so. They would run and fetch things from the storage, and weigh out vegetables, and make deliveries before and after school. And this was normal. The whole family worked.

This whole idea of the man doing all the work and supporting the wife’s bonbon habit is new and so annoying and untrue. Either everyone had to work, or no one had to work.

Well even in hunter – gatherer societies, there’s a large workload faced by women. I understand foraging by the women of the band provides most of the food, and that’s often while pregnant/engaging in child care.

Um… okey… so women are biologically created so sit still, especially during pregnancy?

…

If this is true, then I have some questions:

1. Women who get exercise build muscle and stamina, and reasonable levels of exercise has lots of positive effects both mentally and physically, improving the health of these women…

2. … but it also increases both the chances of getting pregnant but also reduces various risks during the pregnancy and childbirth? (Compared to a woman who sits very still and doesn’t get any exercise.)

It’s something I’ve noticed with these Really Smart™ fellows but the fatuousness of their argument is in direct proportion to their inability to use commas correctly. I mean, given how abhorrent their opinions are, I know that’s like complaining that the ice cream sundae composed of human ordure you were served with didn’t come with sprinkles, but still…

To carry on from Kevin’s point, gathering typically provides about 80% of the food for the entire group as a hunt is incredibly inefficient and the men eat most of the animal (the dogs have a higher priority in getting a share than women and girls).

Human have evolved from vegetarian into omnivores in part because they could not forage enough food. So I express scepticism about hunting being incredibly inefficient. Humans apparently hunted mammoths to extinction ; that’s *probably* not only due to prehistoric men needing trophy for their dorms.

(one of the common pitfall when looking at that kind of metric is that usually, meat is much more nourishing per weight, meaning that maybe foraging is 80% by volume but 50-60% of their need, which make hunting look a lot more reasonable suddenly)

Imagine, for example, a hungry community looking at a young woman who had the potential to be a talented hunter (great shot, exceptional stamina, whatever) and saying “well, we could have used someone with her skills on the last couple (unsuccessful) hunts. But she’s a girl, guess we’ll keep going hungry b/c girl no hunt mammoth.”

Further, even if these tasks were strictly segregate by sex (which I think is doubtful) it still makes sense to gather while you hunt and hunt while you gather.

Imagine, again, a group of male hunters coming across a quality berry patch. Are these guys actually going to look at that opportunity and say “well, there’s no women with us to pick those berries. Guess we’re going hungry tonight lads”.

Or, imagine female foragers coming across a large tortoise and saying “well, that would have been a lot of easily acquired calories, too bad there’s no men here.”

In reality, I think neolithic communities probably did everything possible to maximize their ability to feed themselves.

@Knitting Cat Lady : true, but it don’t address the main issue, which is that humans hunted for a reason, and we know that they hunted enough to help entire species disappear.

@Specialffrog : if we assume humans started hunting not because they needed it for subsistance, then for which reason ? As far as I know, humanoid hunting predate tool making by a lot of time.

A reasonable explanation is that foraging 2 tons of food is a lot more than twice as long as foraging 1 tons of food, since the first ton is made on closest spot and probably made of easiest things to pick up. So hunting become efficient enough at some point.

@doethreetwoone : yeah, sex probably wasn’t a super big factor on who do what. Similar to how the idea that lioness do all the hunting is an exageration. (and there’s male-like lioness to boot !)

That being said, to an extent, it *is* reasonable to suppose that a group of people on the trail of a prey would not take too many hours picking apples along the way, and conversely that a group of people gathering roots who probably take a long hard look at how much stuff they carry and how tired they are before hunting a target of opportunity. At some point it can be worth it to mentally note the spot and go back later equipped for the job. Doubly so since at that time, human had to defend their kills from others animals.

Ohlman: I don’t have a better explanation but that’s kind of irrelevant. It takes evidence to determine that a particular trait is even adaptive let alone that it evolved for a particular reason. Just because an explanation seems plausible it doesn’t mean it is true.

This is the core reason why evolutionary psychology is largely nonsense.

Your comment reminds me of an old argument I had with a zealous, more-socialist-than-thou friend of mine; they refused to accept that working for a small family business both was and WAS NOT exploitation, given the economic system we are born into. Wanted us all to condemn our families because theirs was shitty.
Peace!

Supposedly, the only stone-age tribes in the recent past/present day where hunting is a 100% male activity are the ones which rely entirely on big game spear hunting and/or driving predators from their kills. This only takes up about 20% of all known tribes, however. It’s common for women to do at least a small part of the hunting, but if they have a strict cultural division of labor by sex and/or gender, then men and women use entirely different hunting methods. It’s not clear if this has always been true.

@Snowberry : I am not a specialist in that, but as far as I know, most ancient civilizations were less strict about social roles than their written record let around.

@Knitting Cat Lady : the pinning of hunting only on large animal is so annoying you see it in people that don’t think that :/. I would add that when human spread, each time there simultaneously a real impact on local fauna (and not just megafauna !), so the claim that it’s not related to human is an actual hard claim.

That being said, I don’t get what you try to convey. You seemingly try to split smaller games (and fishing) from megafauna hunting, and I don’t see why. Especially since hunting rabbits and bird isn’t easy, and thoses kind of prey require hunting parties for chimpanzees.

@specialfrog : the claim that a trait is non adaptive is just as much of a claim. When it’s about a complex and dangerous activity that require coordinations of several individuals, the claim become bigger. That’s why claiming that eye color isn’t an adaptative trait is much more reasonable than claiming that, well, hunting isn’t an adaptative trait.

Now, one *could* argue that early humans were rolling deep enough into ressources that they hunted for the same reason that pharaoh built pyramids. That don’t seem terribly more likely than hunting being a good way to round up foraging, doubly so when a common reaction to environement change is to either start predating, or on the opposite giving up predation.

Also, the reason behind a specific trait is just as important as the trait. Finding out why dinosaurs developped feather is just as important than the fact that they weren’t developped for flying initially.

What caused the extinction of the megafauna during the Holocene is fuzzy.

The warming climate and the combined rising of sea levels and spreading of forests shrunk the available habitat.

Over hunting may have played a role as well.

The science is still up in the air on this topic and anyone saying they know definitively has no clue what they’re talking about.

Possibility that I’ve not really seen mentioned, though I’ll admit I’ve not looked for it over hard, is less over-hunting and more the hunting targets picked.

The easiest way to hunt for food quickly is to take the young – they’re weaker AND far less experienced, at the cost of less meat. It doesn’t take too many years to wipe out even a large herd doing that.

Chimps do that – it’s well documented by Jane Goodall’s lot at Gombe, and baboons do it too (funny thing – in chimpanzees, hunting is a co-operative activity DURING the act, and a dominance display once the hunt succeeds. That sounds way too familiar.). Not too big a stretch to assume our ancestors also hunted in that manner, and that it had a disproportionate effect on the local megafauna.

I’m currently reading a remarkably dismaying book on the natural history of how humanity has fucked up the oceans.

One detail that applies here – once European trespassers* discovered the beaches where sea turtles laid their eggs, they would wait for the nights when they crawled on shore to do so, then rush out and flip them over. Following morning was slaughtering time.

Of course, all the turtles were females of reproductive age, which magnified the impact this had on breeding populations. It’s amazing that there still *are* any sea turtles.

OT: The new movie Long Shot will make incels so mad for so many reasons.

Have you seen it? Do you agree with the review? I would be interested in your opinion. I avoided it because it seemed to me that it was going to be a “schlubby schlub without merit gets hot woman and never has to work ever again because she supports him” movie, which seems like a movie incels would love. But I based this content guess on vague things I heard, and also admittedly an amorphous dislike for Seth Rogan, so I’m willing to give it a shot if you recommend it.

Idk what is up with my internet but I think my last post bugged out. Anyway here’s a debate Should women be allowed to vote by a vegan youtuber and a self described incel standing in for Turd Fling ING Monkey, a mgtow you tuber who said women shouldny have that right, or msot rights. Hes apart of the YouTube mgtow crowd that claims western civilization is falling because of women not being forced to stay at home and be incubators. Also claimed that being mothers are the highest honor and should be the only thing women should strive for

read some of the comments from the video too and one of them said that mgtows are the only men to truly love women…. Depressing all around. And right when I learned that The Handmaids Tale is coming back

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here